In the latest terrorist video broadcast on al Jazeera, President Bush is called a liar. Democrats call him a liar more than the terrorists do. The terrorists want US troops out of Iraq. So do the Democrats.
The terrorists condemn President Bush's so-called troop surge, because they don't want more GI's killing them. The Democrats have spent the last few weeks trying to get the majority of Congress to join the terrorists in their condemnation of the troop surge.
If they can't get us out of Iraq, the terrorists would love to cut off the funding for the troops. Democrat Congressman Murtha, joined by many of his far-left wacko friends, is working very hard to make sure the terrorists' wishes come true.
So just what is the difference between the terrorists and the Democrats? It has to be more than just the fact that the terrorists wear towels on their heads and the Democrats dress in $3,000 silk suits.
The difference is that the terrorists are more honest than the Democrats. They're not ashamed to say that they don't support our troops! They are very clear that they will do anything possible to undermine their morale.
The Democrats, on the other hand, talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one side they say, "We support our troops." On the other, they plot to take away the very money that supports the troops in battle!
Bragging about their "victory" with their anti-troop resolution, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said, "The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: We here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops." Excuse me, Nancy. Just how does threatening to cut off money for weapons, ammunition and food for the troops translate into "...supporting our troops"?
She continued, "The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon." Typical lies from a woman who constantly lies. First, this wasn't "legislation." This was a toothless resolution from a bunch of crybabies who feel they're not getting enough attention. Second, the only way this will "end the fighting" is if they manage to cut off funding and starve the troops out of Iraq. (See LINK below for an article about the Dems' plans to cut off funding for troops.)
Astoundingly, two Democrats had more courage than 17 of the Republicans in the House. All the Democrats but two (Marshall and Taylor) voted for the resolution which will do so much to undermine the morale of our troops in battle. Among the Republicans were 17 traitors who voted for the resolution. A complete list of who voted yea and nay can be found in the LINKS below.
Congress doesn't have the authority to end the war. Congress (including almost every Democrat) authorized the war. Legally they can't "unauthorize" it as some Democrats have threatened to do. If they did so, it would not only leave the Iraqi people defenseless; it would endanger our own troops. Anyone who has studied armed conflict knows the dangers to the troops of withdrawing before the enemy has been defeated. That is called retreat, and many of our troops would die in such a cowardly action.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top-ranked Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, commented on the stupidity of the Democrat plan: "Congress' attempts to prohibit the movement of such troops by management policies are extremely dangerous," Hunter said. "It could stop reinforcements from arriving in time to stop major casualties in any of a number of scenarios.
"I said on the first day of this debate: The Iraq resolution and the new proposal to cut off troop deployments through the operation and maintenance budget are going to be seen by America's friends, America's enemies and America's troops as the first signals of retreat in the war on terrorism!"
House Minority Leader John Boehner said the plan would "choke off" money for troops. "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements, and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," said Boehner of Ohio.
"This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop this surge," said Rep. John Murtha, the architect of the treasonous plan. "The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," Murtha gloated.
Democrats joined Republicans recently in approving Bush's nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command the US troops in Iraq (see LINK below). Now these hypocrites are doing everything in their power to torpedo the plan he has approved to increase troop strength, and ensure that he will fail. The real irony is that just after we defeated Saddam, the Democrats were screaming for more troops in Iraq. Now that the President and his commanders are asking for more troops, the Dems want to undermine them.
It seems like the Democrats' only policy in this war (and in every other issue, domestic or foreign) can be summed up in nine words: "We want the opposite of what the President wants." This childish attitude puts our nation at risk.
The vote in the House will embolden terrorists, and it sends the wrong message to our troops in Iraq and at home. The terrorists will see us as weak and without the will to fight. Our own troops will see a Congress that does not appreciate or support them.
Rep. Peter King of New York asked Congress to vote against the resolution, which he characterized as "misguided and dangerous." He said, "You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining our new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in the conduct of this war."
Roll Call of Votes For and Against the Resolution
Republicans Sizzle Over Democrat's Plans to Limit Iraq War Funds
Senate Panel Approves New Commander for Iraq